Amazon S3 Reviews

We primarily use the solution for file storage. 

It's a very good solution that makes it easy to save. 

It is easy to set up, and it's cheap. We have to pay as long as it's used, however, it's not so expensive. 

The product can scale.

It's reliable and stable.

My company is in several regions with some offices in the Middle East, Europe, and Asia. Sometimes we have to concentrate networks to a certain location, like the EU, for example. Therefore, if we set S3 in the EU region from the Middle East or Africa, the latency is an issue and we find it hard to connect to that S3. If we could have a much faster connection, it would be better.

While the price is pretty cheap, it could always be less costly.

I've been using the solution for about three or four years. 

It's very stable and reliable. I'd rate stability almost ten out of ten. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

We have a team of ten on the solution right now. We may increase usage in the future. 

It's a scalable solution. I'd rate it eight out of ten in terms of the ability to expand. 

I've never used support. I'm not in a position to ask for AMazon support. Therefore, I cannot speak to their level of service.

We were only on-premises previously. We've never used a different cloud solution. 

This is a very simple product to set up. It's not overly difficult. The process is quite clear and straightforward. 

The deployment times vary from project to project. Sometimes, you can deploy everything in a day. Sometimes it takes a week. Checking sessions usually take some time. 

We have witnessed an ROI while using the solution. 

The pricing is very reasonable. We do not find it expensive at all. 

We pay a monthly licensing fee.

I'd rate the pricing five out of ten.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I'd recommend it to other companies or users. 

We are making custom applications to the cloud.

We are service providers.

In terms of use cases, where a company wants to deploy their applications instead of building their servers on the premise, on the company premise. They can just, instead of buying servers and setting up networks and everything, buy space online on the AWS cloud. That way, you don't have to buy an expensive server. You already have servers online. You deploy your application. That's the main use case we are handling now. For example, if you have an in-house ERP, you want to move everything to the cloud. We migrate clients, for example. from on-premise to the cloud. If you have heavy tasks, there are computations that require heavy, powerful machines.

The solution is stable and reliable.

It’s easy to set up.

Technical support is excellent.

Amazon, especially its cloud, is the best on the market.

It can lower costs as you won’t need physical hardware on-site.

Regarding S3, S2, and E2, all I'd recommend is for pricing to be lower since we can easily overuse them. For example, if a certain resource is left unchecked, you can easily use a lot of it and drive up costs.

We’ve used the solution for a while.

AWS is very, very stable. It's actually the most stable cloud service for S3, for all the services provided on the cloud. They're very stable. However, compared to others, they are costly.

We started this year, so we haven't gone much into it. We became partners this year. Right now, we only have one client that we have recently started locally in Kenya.

The tech support is good. It's perfect.

The initial setup is very straightforward. AWS is the easiest to set up. It's the best actually among the cloud providers. It’s number one compared to Google Cloud, Oracle, or Microsoft Azure.

It took a few hours to set up.

We are integrators. We are able to handle the setup ourselves.

Their prices are higher than say Microsoft Azure or Google. So AWS is very easy to use yet expensive.

Licensing is pay as you go. The more resources you use, the more you pay, however, they seem to be more costly than competitors.

We have two options for the cloud. We can choose Oracle Cloud or AWS. We take what is suitable depending on the plan and the cost implications.

We became AWS partners this year.

I’d recommend this and any other AWS product to others.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

Set up a performance and stress-based test suite to measure the endurance of a web application on Amazon AWS cloud system using S3 as the back-end storage infrastructure. 

In order to test application and measure its performance, it is not possible to buy the real hardware at the infant stage of product development. Hence, I used Amazon AWS/S3 solution to prove my concept before deploying it on real hardware. It was a great experience and was really scalable.

S3 provides various other ways than what a traditional web app provides. The down side is the web app should be aware of all the features that S3 provides in order to leverage its full potential.

It is a great product now. Maybe they need to expand their range of physical locations.

Most of the files and some of the services connect, using the Amazon service. Our application foundation is on that and we are writing our solutions right now. After that, we will begin to sell it to other customers.

The main aspect we like is that it's been easy to use.

The solution scales well.

The solution is stable.

Technical support has been helpful.

The pricing and licensing are pretty complex. It needs to be simplified. 

They have no development environment. That means that even during the development time, we are paying.

The initial setup can be a bit complex.

It would be helpful if there were more templates available. 

Our application is still new. We are just in development. Our testing environment is on Amazon S3. Most of the files and some of the services connect, using the Amazon service. Our application foundation is on that and we are writing our solutions right now. After that, we will begin to sell it to other customers.

We've used it maybe for about a year.

The solution is stable. Up until this point, we haven't had any issues. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

The product can scale well. It's very easy to do.

We have around 6,000 people using the solution currently.

Technical support is okay. If there are some problems, we can contact them directly.

Most problems are on our side as there are some configurations and other things we did wrong. We've noted our issues and have fixed them going forward. However, it's on us to fix them, not Amazon.

The initial setup can be a bit complex. That said, my company is an IT company and therefore it's not hard for us. If there are other people that maybe aren't in IT, if they use the Amazon service, it could be complex to them.

In terms of maintenance, sometimes if there is some problem, right now we have only three engineers. It's a little bit hard to maintain it with just that small amount. That's why we're hiring some professional companies for that.

We pay for the solution on a monthly basis. We use a basic license and any additional fees based on usage. 

It's complete licensing. It's not simple at all. 

We did look at an option from Google, however, there were some restrictions and we decided against using them.

I'd advise new users to read the documentation before deciding on using the solution.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. We're pretty happy with its capabilities.

We use this solution to store the historical data of the customer. Additionally, we are creating JSON format data while running our application and we are pushing this JSON format data to the Amazon S3.

This solution is good at storing historical data and we were using it for other purposes.

When we need to find the queries there is no user interface, it is the only textual format that is bulky. If we need some data we will use Athena for queries and we will get results. When comparing this solution to others, such as DataDog, they provide a wonderful UI, and user-friendly dashboards, and many other features that this solution is lacking.

We have found that the query takes too much time to process and it is quite difficult to receive the data.

I have been using the solution for approximately three years.

The solution is stable.

I have found the solution scalable.

The initial setup was quite complex. We needed to create some endpoints but with a little effort everything turned out alright. Additionally, we use Kafka queues and we send them to the S3 bucket. With the help of shell scripts, we run one script and we receive the data from Kafka queue, topic by topic, and we send the data to the S3 bucket.

The cost of storage is cheap. However, the cost to have a better interface can get expensive. We are using Athena for this purpose and if we did some heavy queries the cost will start adding up. When the Athena query is running, it will scan the bucket and they charge for how many GBs we are going to scan. The function of scanning has a lot of costs attached to it, this is a negative point.

I have evaluated Datadog and Kibana and we are planning on moving away from Amazon S3 and S3 Athena because the other solutions provide the latest technology.

We should not use this solution for the purpose of the logs. We realized if we need to track the logs and a few other things we should use a good log platform which would have been better.

We plan to keep using this solution in the future but only for a specific set of purposes. We are moving away from S3 to a different solution, such as Datadog or Elasticsearch because 80% of the usage is only for storage purposes. We will keep on doing the same thing in the future. Only 20% of our usage we are planning to move from S3 to a log platform.

I would advise others if this solution fits the use case or expected usage for the end-user then I would recommend it. If they can afford everything that is involved, such as storage and usage fees, then it would be a good choice. They have to consider how frequently they want to access the data from the storage, how many heavy queries they want to run, and are they going to manipulate the data or retrieve the data. They should consider all these scenarios before they make the decision to implement the solution.

I rate Amazon S3an eight out of ten.

We are using Amazon S3 mostly for block storage.

The most valuable features of Amazon S3 are its storage capabilities, security, and integration.

Amazon S3 could improve by having more frequent updates.

I have been using Amazon S3 for approximately six years.

The solution is stable.

Amazon S3 is a highly scalable solution.

We have two clients using the solution.

The support from Amazon S3 is excellent. 

I rate the support from Amazon S3 a ten out of ten.

Positive

The setup of Amazon S3 was straightforward. The implementation process is quick.

We used an integrator for the deployment of the solution.

There is a license needed to use this solution and it is reasonably priced.

I recommend this solution to others.

I rate Amazon S3 a ten out of ten.

We use the solution for data blocking and analysis. It is also used as a storage solution, gene access and maintaining access.

The most valuable features are VNet, virtual machines, and Elastic Kubernetes Service.

We have been using this solution for eight years and are using the latest version. It can be deployed anywhere. We can use a console and data from and on-premises.

It is a stable solution.

It is a scalable solution because it is low latency. We have several users and plan to increase usage in the future.

I rate the technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

We used a storage account in Azure and Data Lake.

The initial setup was straightforward. We use Terraform for deployment, and we only need one person for deployment.

We have seen a return on investment because we do not pay overhead costs.

It is expensive for storing, but it is way cheaper for retrieval.

We evaluated block storage.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten.

One of our clients required certain files to be processed and stored. As another separate service, they wanted a separate integration to capture those files or pull those files. As a storage location, we used S3. It was cloud storage between two services. It was an integration between two services.

Security-wise, it's very good. The scalability and availability are great.

The installation is easy.

It's a stable solution. 

The multi-zone replication is great.

Technical support is helpful. 

We would like Amazon to reduce the price of storage. 

I've been using the solution for eight months. 

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable and the performance is good. 

The solution can scale very well. 

Almost all of our clients use S3 for different requirements, however, I have gotten involved for about eight months with one client.

Overall Amazon support has been very helpful. When we have queries, when we have challenges, they were responsive. I'm a happy customer of Amazon support.

We found the initial setup to be very straightforward. There is not any cumbersome configuration. It's very, very straightforward and easy to implement.

The deployment took a few hours. That includes handling the security configuration.

You only need one or two people for deployment and maintenance. 

As an implementor, I can help a client with the setup.

Amazon should work to revamp its pricing structure so that pricing comes down. 

I'm an implementor. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten due to its scalability and availability. It also allows multi-zone replications. I would recommend this to customers - especially those that are geographically diverse. Companies like this should consider S3 as shared storage or for integrations required for file transfers and between multiple zones.